United States v. Ifemmuta C. Adirika
678 F. App'x 927
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA informant Louis Valmyr ("Lucky") agreed to work for DEA after his April 2012 arrest; he made multiple controlled buys of Oxycodone from defendants Antonio Richard and Ifemmuta Adirika between May 2012 and March 2013.
- Controlled buys included 10 × 80 mg pills (June 15, 2012), 20 × 80 mg (July 30, 2012), and multiple purchases of 375 and 200 × 30 mg pills (Sept., Oct. 2012 and Mar. 2013); DEA supplied funds and recording devices.
- Recordings contained Creole-language segments; audio was translated by a Utah translation center and independently reviewed in court by Creole translator Philippe Chany, who testified and made minor edits.
- Days before trial the informant Valmyr was arrested for unrelated large-scale cocaine trafficking, invoked the Fifth Amendment, and did not testify; the court found him unavailable and the government did not grant immunity.
- Defendants were tried jointly, convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute Oxycodone; sentences (Richard 36 months, Adirika 40 months) were below advisory guideline ranges.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment (predisposition) | Evidence (prior unannounced supply to Valmyr, Richard’s statements about a steady supplier, repeated controlled buys, statements about inventory) shows predisposition | Government induced crimes; informant-led opportunities and DEA involvement produced the offenses | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of predisposition for both Richard and Adirika; entrapment rejected |
| Confrontation Clause — translated transcripts | Transcripts were properly admitted because Chany performed an independent, firsthand review and testified, allowing cross-examination | Admission violated Sixth Amendment because the original translators (who produced transcripts) did not testify | Affirmed: Chany’s independent review/testimony satisfied Crawford principles per Curbelo; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Missing-witness / instruction about informant’s Fifth Amendment invocation | No inference should be given; informant equally unavailable to both sides absent immunity grant | Court should give missing-witness and/or instruction noting Valmyr invoked Fifth Amendment to allow adverse inference | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in refusing instructions; Valmyr’s invocation made him equally unavailable and impeachment facts were presented elsewhere |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Richard’s possession/conspiracy | Circumstantial and direct evidence (controlled buys, statements about inventory and supplier, directing buyers to Adirika) supports convictions | Evidence insufficient: no clear video of exchange, limited presence/participation at some buys | Affirmed: sufficient evidence for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements inadmissible unless declarant unavailable and prior cross-examination permitted)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certifications can be testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (certificates of analysis are testimonial)
- United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2013) (third-party independent review of translated transcripts can satisfy Confrontation Clause)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (distinguishing unwary innocents from unwary criminals in entrapment analysis)
- United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564 (11th Cir. 1996) (entrapment review is sufficiency inquiry)
- United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618 (11th Cir. 1995) (predisposition factors and entrapment analysis)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional errors)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to present a complete defense)